Posted
by
kdawson
on Monday July 02, 2007 @06:49PM
from the next-stop-paris dept.

An anonymous reader notes that President Bush has decided to commute Scooter Libby's sentence after numerous appeals failed. Libby was convicted in March of obstruction of justice in connection with the Valerie Plame affair. The President's action spares Libby from 30 months behind bars."

No. It is part of the checks and balances on the Judicial and Legislative branch (Legislative because if he wanted to, the President could pardon everyone convicted of a law he felt ran contrary to the country). He is supposed to show restraint in using the power and use it only when it does not weaken laws unnecessarily.

Of course, since President Bush doesn't seem to follow much for precedent in other areas, it comes as no surprise he commuted the sentence.

Personally, I don't care about Libby. I'm more concerned that he has weakened the force that testifying to Congress should hold. Testifying to Congress should be a big deal. Obstructing them should be a big deal. He not only lied to Congress, he lied to the country our Congressmen represent.

It is part of the checks and balances on the Judicial and Legislative branch

I thought checks and balances were entirely optional now. Can't the judiciary just declare they're no longer part of the judicial branch, or claim this has to do with national security, or say they respect the president's right to his own opinion while completely ignoring him? Turnabout is fair play.

You're well behind on your news. The CIA revealed in May of this year that Plame most certainly DID qualify as covert under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.

The portion of the act grabbed onto by many right-wing radio talk show hosts in the past few years has been the extra-US service portion. It states that in order to qualify as covert, an agent has to have served outside the US in the 5 years previous to the outing.

Well, news flash, Plame did serve overseas in the 5 years prior to her outing. She traveled overseas at the specific behest of the CIA many, many times during the 5 years prior to her outing. Sometimes she even traveled under an assumed name.

Plame worked as an operations officer in the Directorate of Operations and was assigned to the Counterproliferation Division (CPD) in January 2002 at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.

"The employment history indicates that while she was assigned to CPD, Plame, "engaged in temporary duty travel overseas on official business." The report says, "she traveled at least seven times to more than ten times." When overseas Plame traveled undercover, "sometimes in true name and sometimes in alias -- but always using cover -- whether official or non-official (NOC) -- with no ostensible relationship to the CIA."

We'll only see a conviction for the outing of Plame when White House staffers stop perjuring themselves and stone-walling the investigation.

In other words, never...

The real reason Libby was prosecuted is lost on many of the administration's defenders. Many have deluded themselves into believing that Libby's prosecution was some sort of political witch hunt.

This would have to be the first political witch-hunt in history where a Republican politico was prosecuted by a Republican prosecutor, sentenced and jailed by a Republican Judge, and refused bail by an appelate court, the majority of whom were Republicans.

Libby's prosecution wasn't a witch-hunt. Libby was prosecuted because he blocked Fitzgerald's investigation. Libby lied and stone-walled, preventing Fitzgerald from ever getting to the bottom of why Plame was outed.

The "why" is very important. This is because the Intelligence Identities Protection Act only allows prosecution of those who knowingly reveal the identity of a covert agent. Fitzgerald had to prove they knew, but he couldn't reach that level of proof without honest testimony from those involved.

But because Libby lied to the grand jury and FBI, because Karl Rove stone-walled and nearly found himself similarly prosecuted for perjury, Fitzgerald was unable to get enough proof to prosecute any IIPA violations.

Libby's lies probably saved some in the administration from prosecution under the IIPA. That is why Libby was prosecuted for perjury and why no one has been (or probably ever will be) charged for outing Plame under the IIPA.

Well the question is could it get any worse for Bush?
He can't get elected for a third term, his approval rating is lower that any other president, the Democrats do not have the balls to impeach Cheney, let alone Bush, etc.
Will American people march in the streets against him? very unlikely, they're too busy following the lives of spoiled celebrities.
It just can't get any worse for Bush.

Democrats do not have the balls to impeach Cheney, let alone Bush, etc.

Actually, it's questionable whether they could impeach Cheney. The Consitution outlines the procedure for impeachment of the President (presided by the Chief Justice) and everyone else (presided by the Vice-President) so that means Cheney will preside over his own impeachment hearing. And as for impeaching Bush, an escape maneuver was already perfected by Nixon and Ford.

Personally, I'm hoping that a person will be elected in 2008 that will actually carry out a major house cleaning and reform policy. We've been screwed by the current administration and previous administrations because of a lack of accountability and transparency. Whether Democrat or Republican, this clean up needs to happen in a big way.

While I'd like to see a number of members of the current administration serve time, nothing will change without real reform rather than just idle talk.

> "Will American people march in the streets against him? very unlikely, they're too busy following the lives of spoiled celebrities."

I just want to get this out there, and your post is as good as any to reply to.

In the 60s, you had people running all over the place screaming about war and civil rights as loudly as they could. They were hippies, they were activists, they were protesters, they were idealists, and they were absolutely committed to their beliefs. So I want to state for the record the official reason why I, and perhaps other members of my generation, do not follow this example: It's not worth my fucking time. 3000+ civilians dead, 3000+ soldiers dead, tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, a government more transparently incompetent than ever before, Newspeak permeating through life as we know it (well, more so a few years ago than now), perpetual war that by definition cannot end ("War on Terror"), unregulated and uncontrollable executive privileges, domesting spying, and election fraud. It seems like never before has it all been so obvious, that never before has a problem or trap been more evident, yet 2004 showed me how fucking powerless we are to do anything about it. So you know what, I don't care that Bush pardoned/commuted/excused/whatever his buddy, I don't care what his administration does anymore, and I don't care that the world's going to Hell in a handbasket; I'm done caring. I'm going to spend my effort worrying about matters with a much greater (importance) * (ability to make a difference) product. Enjoy the scenery in Hell, because I'm keeping my fucking eyes closed.

It's true the President has that kind of power, but isn't he supposed to at least try to seem impartial and not at all corrupt?

You've apparently not been paying attention to the news for the last 7 years. Let me introduce you to 21st century American Politics- when the question isn't "is this politician corrupt?" but rather "who has purchased this politician?", because the assumption is EVERY politician is corrupt.

There is nothing impartial about pardoning someone.
The act itself indicates that the individual being pardoned has either already been convicted by a jury or that his conviction is a forgone conclusion.

The recompense is that it is all public.

We all know that Libby lied to a grand jury;
that he did it to obstruct the investigation of a felony;
that he worked in the white house at the time;
that he was convicted;
that that the supreme court recently upheld a harsher punishment for the same crime;
that his appeal was not heard;
And finally, that the president, knowing all this, chose to commute his sentence.

This is as old - at least - as President Jackson, who said "To the victor belong the spoils." One of the spoils is to be able to pardon the guys who do dirty work for you. Sad to say, it's been going on for at least 150 years.

Actually, Clinton's was over sexual harassement. He is/was a serial sexual harasser.

Don't be so absurd. When two adults mutually consent to one giving the other a blowjob then it's not sexual harassment.

It would have been sexual harassment if there was some coercion involved but there wasn't, and to suggest that there was is just ridiculous. Monica Lewinsky was a willing participant, on more than one occasion, and she's said so herself.

But, sure, defend this morally corrupt Bush administration by continually trying to distract the attention away from the issues of the day. I wonder when you'll recognise which President has truly let down his nation.

Considering a judge recently said that Libby could not delay starting to serve his sentence (~30 months), if Bush waited until a couple of says before he left office, Libby's sentence would be just about complete. It would be a waste of a pardon.

To the right, one would think that gay male rape would be regarded as a sin and a gross violation of manhood.

To the left, one would think that prison abuse happening on a widespread scale should be something that a civil society should abhor.

To the notion of American individual rights, one would think that being sentenced to rape is a cruel and unusual punishment.

As is, it is treated flippantly.

Shame on any of you who think this is funny. Prison rape is NOT a fucking joke! It is a disgusting violation of human rights and the persistant and wicked idea that it's either funny or representative of justice that someone be sentenced to RAPE is the primary reason why it continues.

If you think my condemnation of you rape advocates is unfair, then I would like either a "liberal" or a "conservative" to make a strong, compelling case why any crime which merits prison time be "rape by default". Please tell me how exactly that represents "justice" to you.

It's not that it's funny. It's that it may very well be the only thing about prison that people FEAR anymore.

Rape obviously cannot be condoned by society, and yet the idea of a person we hate being violated so intimately is something the public loves with a fetish. It directs attention away from the otherwise sanitized, taxpayer-funded reality of prison, and gives people a more concrete idea of prison than orange jumpsuits and the image of a barred door slamming shut.

People may hate rape on several levels, but the idea of rape as a form of punishment is still alive and well, even if our society cannot openly condone it. Blame the savageness of humanity if you will, but humor is just a weak mask for the truth.

Personally, I can tell you that 100% of the time I crack that joke, it is because I find the practice of sentencing people to rape to be offensive. Remember the old advice of, "Never discuss sex, politics, or religion" when socializing? Well, our culture allows us to say just about anything if the person saying it can even remotely claim it was a joke. Not at work, but most other places. Just watch any stand up comedy show on TV, and you will see a stream of dirty, political, sexist, and racist jokes. So, what happens is that issues that would normally be considered taboo to speak about, are now put out in the open.

Which is do you find more offensive, people cracking jokes who's punchlines are considered funny BECAUSE the statement is so offensive, or people just not talking about the problem at all?

Oops. Well, thanks to the runaway modding, that totally incorrect description is totally burned into the record. Suck.

Oh well. To further clarify, the pardon basically gives back any rights that were lost as a result of the conviction. It looks like courts have ruled that it carries with it an assumption of guilt and the record continues to exist, but no confession needs to be made. What's interesting about the whole situation is how many decisions on the topic were rendered relatively recently after the initial precedents were set a long time ago. It looks like Iran-Contra served to clarify a few things. Older decisions said basically that the crime magically went away, but that has gone by the wayside and now you're guilty in the eyes of the law, but just not punishable.

The next interesting question is, if you're technically guilty but not really because you were pardoned, what implications does it have in issues where your status as a criminal might not have legal implications but definitely has practical ones (e.g. getting a security clearance)? Not surprisingly, it looks like there are a lot of interesting legal opinions on this one. It looks like the prevailing wisdom is, "You got caught being bad and everybody knows it. Suck it up."

"Democrats should do this, republicans should do that..." this is the exact behavior that is retarding the nation, driving it to insanity, poverty and international disdain. Instead of blaming the other party, fucking fix it and get on with it. They spend so much time blaming each other, that if they would have only taken a little bit more energy, not only would they have fixed the problem, but by fixing it made the other party look excruciatingly ridiculous and inept to even the most base of people. Of course, one can only dream.

"Democrats should do this, republicans should do that..." this is the exact behavior that is retarding the nation, driving it to insanity, poverty and international disdain.

Indeed. The sports team mentality that is so prevalent in politics is a primary source of the idiocy we endure. Even if something is clearly foolish or just plain wrong, there are people who will perform any and all necessary mental contortions to try to justify it, purely on the basis that it's their "team" that did it. The Democrats will shout and point fingers at the unethical Republicans over this latest travesty of justice, while the Republicans will similarly shout and point fingers at those damned liberals. Meanwhile, the country continues to go to hell in a hand-basket.

There is no constitutional requirement for the state of the union to be a speech.

From Article 2 Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommendto their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinaryOccasions, convene both Houses...

Sounds to me like the president has the power to convene Congress for the purpose of giving a speech. George Washington thought so too; the timing & manner of delivering the State of the Union dates back to the Washington administration.

In point of fact, Bill Clinton was impeached and disbarred for the same crime.

In point of fact, Bill Clinton was not convicted of the same crime. The reason being that he technically did not perjure himself. Yes, there was a "lie of omission", but that is not perjury. So really there's no decriminalization due to Clinton since there wasn't an actual crime.

(The bar association has ethics rules that DO ban "lies of omission". Hence Clinton's disbarrment)

Many out outraged over this because the people campaigning for and cheering Libby's pardon were the same people who were claiming perjury and obstruction of justice were serious enough to impeach Clinton, when he hadn't been charged with either crime. Now that a "loyal Bushie" has been convicted of these crimes, it's no big deal.

He generally does what he thinks is best, regardless of how the public is going to receive it, which is why people like me love him.

"The public" being most of the rest of the human race. So when this little piece of shit starts a war by lying to the electorate and kills ~300,000 civilians, shreds the constitution, and presides over the most breathtakingly incompetent and corrupt administration in recent history, he's just doing what he thinks is right? And that makes it OK, and you love him? And the fact that this little shithead didn't even know the difference between Shia and Sunni until this year doesn't bother you? Incredible.

Every president before him tried diplomacy, and every president before him was summarily ignored. While it's not our job to be the world police I think it would be far more regrettable in the long run to stand by and do nothing. I think the war could have been better executed, but to some extent we have been hindered by the lack of support from the international community.

This war was never about getting rid of a Tyrant. He was our guy until he over reached and the Saudis, our allies who supply oil and terrorists, freaked out over the invasion of Kuwait and insisted we do something about him.

most LLL types don't actually know very much about our political system and even less about the facts in the Plame affair.

From your post, it appears you're a bit lacking in the subject matter.

The jury that convicted Libby was a crime against justice, hand picked from the craziest denizens of DC to "Get Rove".

You're forgetting that the defense plays a very large role in picking the jury. The jurors were approved by Libby's defense team, and they would not have approved a jury of all crazy liberals.

Libby was going to prison for, worst case, political ass covering of the sort that happens every minute of every day in DC

No, Libby was going to prison because his ass covering broke the law. There's tons of political types who manage to cover asses without obstructing justice. For example, Karl Rove went back to the grand jury, and changed his testimony enough to avoid a perjury charge.

while Sandy "Pants Burgler" Berger walked after finally being cornered by the facts and CONFESSING to stealing classified documents by stuffing them into his pants/socks/etc to remove them from the National Archives for the purpose of destroying them.

Wouldn't a much more apt comparison be the impeachment of Bill Clinton? Back then perjury and obstruction of justice are such serious crimes that the President must be impeached even if he was never charged with either crime. Now you're claiming that those serious crimes are just minor political ass-covering. So, either Libby's crimes are a big deal, or you owe Bill an apology.

There's nothing in the Constitution that says a president can not pardon himself. The only thing he can not do is use a pardon to avoid impeachment. (See Article 1, Section 2 of the Constitution)

Can the president issue a "blank check" kind of pardon.

AFAIK, a pardon can be worded as "I pardon [name] for any crime he has committed between [date] and [date]"

As for your pardons-with-no-names example, that's not kosher. The President has to specify who he is giving the pardon to. In addition, those "blank" pardons would be useless after the end of Ryan's term, since he's no longer President. While President, he can issue pardons on a case-by-case basis so the "blank" ones are unnecessary. In clandestine situations, there's no reason that a pardon could not be classified.

Can Congress or the Supreme Court overturn a presidential pardon or sentence conmutation?

No. The President's pardon powers are absolute. Abuses like the Libby case and the Mark Rich case may fuel efforts for a Constitutional amendment limiting pardons, or allowing them to be overturned. I'd imagine an amendment that lets a massive super-majority of Congress (like 75%) override a pardon might not be a bad idea.

Or how about just not allowing the President to pardon a crime committed by his administration, especially when the act was likely directed by either himself or the vice president?

This is definitely an abuse of power on the part of this President (surprise!) as his administration has a vested interest in seeing that Libby doesn't spend time in Prison. I suspect a full pardon will be handed out on January 20th, 2009. This is about absolving anyone in this administration of any accountability.

How is informing the world that person X is an undercover operative for your government (and that their "employer" is a CIA front, also outing each and every operative utilizing that front) not close to a textbook definition of "giving Aid to the Enemy"?

What exactly was Libby convicted of again? Oh yeah, obstruction of justice. He had nothing to do with Richard Armitage leaking Valerie Plame's identity.

How does Richard Armitage leaking a covert CIA operative's identity to Robert Novak in July 2003 exculpate Scooter Libby from leaking the same operative's identity to Judith Miller on June 23, 2003? [washingtonpost.com]

How does Richard Armitage leaking a covert CIA operative's identity to Robert Novak in July 2003 exculpate Scooter Libby from leaking the same operative's identity to Judith Miller on June 23, 2003? [washingtonpost.com]

I'm not disputing she never has been "covert." I am disputing whether she was "covert" at the time this alleged outing occurred. And it never did occur, because she wasn't "covert" at that time. I believe that was the conclusion of Fitzgerald. But, over-zealous prosecutor he was, he needed to get a conviction to justify himself. Mr. Libby was that unfortunate individual in my opinion.

The problem is that there's often no practical difference between hiding secret things a covert agent is currently doing and continuing to hide them after they're done. If your assertion is that she's not in any danger of execution because she's here in the US and not spying anymore, I agree with you. If your assertion is that her status at the time was not secret, you're full of it. The fact that she wasn't currently active in covert operations doesn't mean that leaking her past activities wasn't potentially a huge breach of security.

Whenever a former covert agent's identity becomes public knowledge, every foreign intelligence agency worth its salt starts to tear through every record of everything that person has ever done, chasing down every possible lead and contact they can find. If, for example, they figure out that other people worked for the front company that the agent in question worked for, they know that those other people are agents. They know that any people those agents had contact with in foreign countries may have been agents or collaborators. Lather, rinse, repeat. These people don't work in isolation, and there's a lot of potentially valuable intelligence to be found once you know the identity of a former agent. That's why the CIA thinks long and hard before giving former covert agents permission to come out, and it's why wankers like Robert Novak don't generally have access to the names of even former agents. It's also why the CIA still considered her undercover and her affiliation with the organization was classified until some people who clearly weren't authorized to do so outed her.

The idea that this was no big deal is, put simply, garbage. There are times when our government can be overly anal about keeping information secret. This was not one of them. There's no disputing the fact that significant classified information was leaked.

Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Ahh, so it's Bush and Cheney who should be tried for treason? Clearly, the two of them did more to recruit for Al Quaeda than probably anyone else in the world. Plus they did a lot to destroy the United States (in slow motion, but the process is well underway [marketwatch.com].)

Only false in so much as he wasn't charged with treason. Outing undercover CIA agents is a treasonous act. Charging him with lying and obstruction was a lesser offense and easier to prove. This government is being run like the mob. I found the definition of Facism interesting.

Thanks to our friends at Wikipedia "Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: nationalism, authoritarianism, militarism, corporatism, collectivism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, racism and opposition to economic and political liberalism.[1][2][3]"

You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can.

What do "the Democrats" have to do with it (outside of commenting to the media)?

The last paragraph in the article mentions the judge in Libby's case:

A White House official notified the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton, of the decision. Walton, a Bush appointee who served in the White House under the president's father, had cited the ''overwhelming'' evidence against Libby when he handed down his sentence. A courthouse spokesman said Walton would not comment.

The reason why the Judge wanted Libby to go to jail NOW is to force the President to pardon him now. [...] You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can.

You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Walton, the judge who ordered immediate prison, was appointed to the bench by Bush himself during his first term. If memory serves, two of the three appeals court judges were also Republican appointees, one considered the most conservative judge sitting on that circuit.

However they beleive in the rule of law and are so now opposed to the executive branch. It will be interesting to see what Republican canditates do to try to distance themselves from Bush before the next election - it's odd as an outside observer to see a monarchy grow out of the Republican party.

There is no expectation of guilt in a pardon. Whoever told you that was feeding you a line. Historically the pardons were use for wrongly convicted people and people who's sentence was too hash. One, there is an admission of guilt the other, there is an obvious statement of no guilt.

Ford pardoned Nixon for one reason only, to move the country forward. And it did that nicely. We had the potential of having a viciously divided country way back then but it didn't happen until Clinton was in the tail end of office and Bush took over. I'm not even going to get into why I think that is, but Ford pardoned Nixon to move the country past the point it was at. Simple as that.

A) He's not innocent, he was found guilty in a court of law by his peers. And if you followed the trial, it was VERY OBVIOUS that Libby did, in fact, spill his guts to anyone who would listen that Valerie Plame had sent her husband on a "fact-finding mission to Niger" in an effort to get them to reprint the same (with the obvious insinuation that there was an agenda to the trip.)
AND THEN PROCEEDED TO LIE ABOUT IT TO THE FBI.
That was the crime committed. Lying to the government is a felony. That's why Bush is keeping the CONVICTION on record. Libby was not innocent.
And B) He was found guilty in a court of law. That is why he "needs to go to jail." And yes, I can easily tell you that Libby deserved to go to jail for what he did. If it had been me, I'd be in jail. What makes him so special?

"You can't tell me that Libby deserved to go to jail for "obstructing" an investigation into whether someone committed a crime "

Yes! Heaven forbid we hold federal officials accountable to the faithful pursuit of justice and to uphold the Constitution and rule of law to which they have sworn an oath!

Lying to federal investigators? Conspiring to mislead the american people? My God, people! If we don't allow the administration to lie, to obstruct justice, and to mislead the american people, how on earth will they stay in power?

He could have pardoned Libby. Then Libby could continue to practice law and wouldn't have to pay the fine. Well, I don't think anybody thinks the fine will come out of his own pocket. And look forward to a pardon when Bush leaves office, which should not be under honorable circumstances.

Apparently our leader has decided that being shamed in front of your family and having your reputation tarnished plus being fined a nominal fee is enough of a punishment for high crimes against the government. Surely such things a possessing a few ounces of pot then deserve nothing more than a vicious finger-wagging, right?....right?

Libby was fairly sentenced in accordance with the sentencing guidelines that everyone else has to live by -- everyone, that is, who doesn't get special treatment from the White House. But also note the obvious conflict of interest here -- the obstruction of justice in question is quite likely protecting that self-same White House!

As for the fine, that's nothing Scooter Libby's defense fund won't easily take care of. And he'll likely have no trouble getting work because of those self-same contributors to his defense fund. As for the felony conviction, we'll see--he could still get pardoned eventually!

So I don't see anything fair about this, especially coming from a President who has used these same powers so little up until now, and still finds the time to rail against "activist judges". Well now you know what an "activist President" looks like.

I'm firmly convinced that we haven't had the Democracy we were promised in America since 1963.While JFK and those before him were not perfect men, at least they tried to uphold the principals of this nation for the greater good of all Americans.

With this administration so blatent with it's lies and contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution and with FOX pundits who often say they wish they could imprison or even kill Democrats or "lefties", I am convinced this nation is under the control of anarchists who wish to push this nation to civil war. And it's not Repubilicans vs Democrat... because the Democrats are hardly a better choice, but a division vbetween those who believe in the Constitution and individual rights, and those who want a Statist system where there is no longer any accountability.

And I hope they keep pushing. Because I'm begining to believe that the time for the ballor box is nearing it's end and all we'll be left with is teh ammo box for casting our votes. The people will only be able to abide by so many offenses. If this blatent lawlessness continues to prevail, the people will sooner or later stand up, and some of those people will be Generals and Admirals within our military.

Does this view sound extreme? Yes.But I hardly think it's far fetched.I'm sure there are a lot of people whose frustration is turning to anger and disgust.

I am convinced this nation is under the control of anarchists who wish to push this nation to civil war.

Anarchists? If Bush and Co. were anarchists of the true definition of the word (i.e., people who want no government), we'd have balanced budgets, very little corruption, a massive reduction in the size of government, no war, etc. I don't think anarchist is the word that you are looking for. Quite the contrary, we're dealing with the near opposite of anarchism. (Disclaimer: I'm not an anarchist, but I am a strict constitutionalist who believe in limited government.)

Our nation for the past 75 years has been controlled by people who want to expand the power and influence of government at the expense of our liberties. Anything in the Constitution that limits the power of the federal government (e.g., the Ninth and Tenth Amendments) have been ignored consistently for the past 70 years. The federal government's growth has gone nearly unchecked since 1933. What we've been getting for decades is "government by the politicians, for the politicians."

I don't see any foreseeable change. All of the mainstream presidential candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, are still interested in maintaining the status quo of expanding government. More laws, more spending, more taxes, or some permutation of the three. The best that we could do is vote for the people who best maintain our Constitution, and brace ourselves.

Good God, you think that JFK was the last great president? If he hadn't gotten himself martyred, he would have gone down as one of the most corrupt and inept presidents in history. His party's rigging of the Illinois vote in 1960 was just as blatant as what happened in Florida in 2000. He gets credit for pushing through civil rights, but his support for that was always lukewarm, and ended up being pushed through after his death by his successor. And more than any one person, JFK deserves the blame for that stupid, pointless war in Vietnam.

But he didn't live long enough for his chickens to come home to roost, and his successor, LBJ, found it politically expedient to give JFK the credit for his own accomplishments. Proof that in politics as in everything else, it's better to be lucky than smart.

Every era has had bad presidents. There was Herbert Hoover, of whom it was said, "It ain't what he don't know that scares me -- it's what he knows for sure that just ain't so!" There was U.S. Grant, who was the greatest military leader of his time -- and the worst head of state of all time. There was the long string of bozos who could have prevented the Civil War, but didn't see what the big deal over slavery was....

So conveniently close to a holiday, too. A large number of people are on vacation, and both vacationers and everyone else will be too busy playing with booze and fireworks to give this much consideration.

Halliburton owes Cheney for a lot of no-bid contracts. Cheney owes Scooter for muddying the waters in the Plame affair. Any bets on whether Scooter lands a choice position at Halliburton in the near future?

pardons and commutations since the Nixon pardon. And, perhaps, the Marc Rich pardon as well. My head is swimming. The President just commuted the sentence of a key insider to the executive branch, who committed felonies while on executive-branch time, and who hadn't even served a single day in jail. Further, he has a record of not commuting or pardoning offenders. From Carla Fey Tucker, the murderer he refused to pardon after she found Christ, to just about everyone else who has requested it during his presidency. But Scooter Libby, a man who alocuted his crimes before the court in order to receive a reduced sentence, has now just skated free.

This absolutely reeks of conflict of interest. I am ashamed of my government.

This absolutely reeks of conflict of interest. I am ashamed of my government.

I couldn't agree with you more. As a voter and taxpayer, I am sick of seeing my government make moral choices that i would scorn a 4th grader for (no offense, any 4th graders reading this). The corruption of this country seems to run deeper every year, and being someone whose only twenty it worries me.
The biggest problem I sense the future holds is the ever growing numbing sensation when news like this is presented. More and more people seem to become desensitized. A 'now this, what's next?' taste lingers in the back of my mouth, and I await the news of more scandals uncovered. What don't I know about.
The next logical question you ask yourself may be, 'how can we prevent further decay of our beloved country'. Good question America. But unfortunately, the damage is uncomprehensable from the bottom of the mountain.

Perhaps the worst part of this travesty of justice is that by doing this rather than pardoning him, this traitor still can continue to appeal, and Still will have the ability to plead the 5th in other cases related to the matter.
in other words he can Cover of Bush and Cheney by pleading the 5th because he case is not pardoned.
How convienant.

Once again, Bush the GREAT shows exactly how to chart a course for fairness, justice and truth. I think it was obvious to everyone that Scooter was the target of a Whitewater-esque witch hunt that had more to do with trying to pay back the Clinton investigations than it did any real crime, and I think the commute was fair. I used to think that history might only place Bush in the top ten of America's greatest presidents, perhaps behind Roosevelt in the last century, but now, I'm not sure that Bush might even be slighted by that.

Could it be that George W. Bush should be in the top 5 of America's greatest presidents?

No seriously. According to this [pollster.com], his approval rating trend is at 28.9%. Typically, you've got a +/- 5 point margin on these polls, if he pulls an especially low poll, it puts him damn close to Truman's record for the all time lowest approval rating ever achieved by a U.S. president of 22%. It'll become more likely for this to happen if he sinks any lower.

"Mr. Libby was sentenced to thirty months of prison, two years of probation, and a $250,000 fine. In making the sentencing decision, the district court rejected the advice of the probation office, which recommended a lesser sentence and the consideration of factors that could have led to a sentence of home confinement or probation. I respect the jury's verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby's sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison."--President Bush. [nytimes.com]

If Bush is citing the probation office's advice, what was that advice? How long was the lesser sentence? Zero, no jail time at all? If not, then why did Bush let Libby off scot free? What is the jail term Bush thinks is appropriate for perjury and objstruction of justice, and why was Libby not required to serve that term?

And why does Bush say "I respect the jury's verdict," when he patently does not respect the jury's verdict? What could possibly constitute more disrespect than setting the verdict aside?

There are a number of "who didn't see this coming" posts. Well, the political analysts didn't see it coming. The expectation was a full pardon after the election and before he left office. Instead, he let the conviction stand and gave him a "get out of jail free" card. Well, overall, I think it's worse for Scooter, seeing as how he'll still be a convicted felon, but at least this way he won't have to see the inside of a jail cell. But Bush claiming all sorts of moral superiority and treating his friends like the law doesn't apply to them is going to cost them in the election. Even the Republicans will be running on a "get the Republicans out of office" platform. We have surges that are not showing results from a war the administration knew was based off faulty inteligence. We have a leader who was on the "perjury is bad" bandwagon when it was the previous president, yet says it isn't a crime worth seeing the inside of a jail cell when it is a friend that does it to cover up what could have been treason.

It was always expected. It may even have been justified (Scooter took one for the team, so the team is helping him out), but it was expected that such decisions would wait until after the election. Maybe he's hoping that people will forget about it by then, or that his approval is so low that it doesn't matter anymore.

In my opinion a 2.5 year prison term is not excessive for a federal official lying to federal investigators in an effort to mislead the american people.

A guy can get more time than that for personal marijuana possession. Which is worse, possessing some plant leaves, or conspiring to mislead the 280 million american citizens you are sworn to serve?

For me the really depressing part is that I have zero confidence that we will ever bring these criminals to justice. They're raping our economy, our brave soldiers, our rights, and our dignity, and it really seems there is not a thing we can do about it but grit our teeth and bare it out. This news just drives home that point.

IMHO, second to getting out of Iraq, my top priority as a voter for the next administration is to prosecute these criminals until they are old and infirm if that is what it takes. We must not let them retire to the easy life of private sector profiteering they think they have to look forward to, the life that Bush Sr. enjoys.

It is the duty of this generation to send a message down through history: fool us once, shame on us, fool us agai... you can't fool us again, because this nation will pursue you to the grave; the american people not rest until you and all your cronies are made to account for the wrongs you have committed against us and against the world in our name. Never Again.

"But our winner, by unanimous decision: the 43rd President of the United States, who has tonight commuted the sentence of one of the key members of his own administration. Who has done it gutlessly, by press release. Who has buried it on the Monday of the longest 4th of July weekend possible. And who has, in so doing, forfeited his claim to being president of anything larger than a small, privileged, elitist, undemocratic, anti-constitutional cabal. As Oliver Cromwell said to the infamous Rump Parliament in England more than 350 years ago, 'You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go.' George Walker Bush, today's worst person in the world."

This whole fiasco (including the slashdot commentary) reeks of what has become the norm of American Politics.

(1) How serious people think the crime is seems to be only dependant on what colour team they support: either (blue) "Complicit in the outing of a CIA operative - bordering on treason!" or (red) "No crime (she wasn't a covert operative), no harm (he had nothing to do with the news stories), no foul". Who is right? Who cares?

(2) accusations of potentially politically motivated judicial decisions: The penalty given, and the refusal to allow appeals before incarceration has been argued to be at least marginally unusual for this sort of case (IANAL, but I've occasionally glanced at Google News), like the blue team finding a chance to make the red team make themselves look bad by drawing commutation out of wildly unpopular red team president: maybe, maybe not, but in this climate, who is to say? (hint, if you support the red team, the judgement was wrong and politically motivated. If you support Blue team, it was just and right and appropriate to the seriousness of the crime - see (1))

(3) Shrill condemnation for a completely inevitable act by the red team: but, regardless of what team is in power, what do you expect? Either they honestly believe that the judgement was a miscarriage of justice (in which case, what else is the power to commute sentences supposed to be for) or he was actually up to no good, on orders from the government (in which case leaving the guy out to dry would go past the line of unethical).
See (1) for a guide on how you should fall on this.

Is this fiasco really factor for anyone? Wouldn't it be better if we stuck to what is *really* bothering us? There is plenty there, and it actually matters!

Isn't it a wonderful country where people who are convicted of a crime don't have to serve the time but American citizens can be held in military brigs for years before they are even charged with a crime?God bless America...

Whenever I see corruption like this I remind myself of our Founder's absolute GENIUS. The legislative branch creates independent prosecutor to investigate executive branch -> the people convict -> the judicial branch sentences -> the executive branch commutes -> the legislative branch goes nuts. It's a perfect series of checks and balances.

Meanwhile, we go about our lives content with the knowledge that our government is far too involved arguing about whether some exec in the Vice-President's office lied about an investigation in which a crime may or may not have actually been committed (no one was ever charged) to actually scheme up ways to consolidate power and threaten the Peoples' freedom. And in the end, no branch got too much say and it was the people who were required to actually convict the dude.

Thank you Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hamilton. This was the true gift of our Founding Fathers; not a perfect government. They knew that men will never change.

Here's the response I sent to someone who argued that the commutation was just:

He was an extremely high ranking government official who lied to the FBI to protect the guilty. When that sort of thing is treated lightly, it sends a clear message to the public that our government is about politics and power, not about justice.

FWIW, I also think Rep Jefferson (D-LA) should be put under the jail.

The reason is this: a fine to Scooter Libby means exactly nothing. The PNAC will pay it for him. Moreover, for every Jefferson or Libby that gets caught, fifty scurry free through the halls of DC. And furthermore, the stakes are enormous. Libby will have power beyond yours or my imagining for the rest of his life for what he did. The only way to disincentivize the behavior, when one in fifty get caught and the rewards are frankly beyond my comprehension, is to make the penalty leviathan.

Why do you suppose our politicians are so corrupt? Is it because they are bad people? No. It is because they are human and they are faced with enormous profit and zero downside. No one could be expected to maintain their moral integrity in the face of that. We have to help them stand their ground, by making corruption unthinkable.

The only other option is to let it keep happening, and watch our nation continue to erode.

You could always, y'know, not visit Politics thread. It's not like you clicked on the "Bush Commutes Libby's Sentence" headline and went, "OH MY GOD POLITICS!! I had NO WARNING!" Seriously, what were you expecting? Discourses on the implementation of preemptive scheduling in the 2.6 kernel?

Fact: Valerie Plame was a CIA agent working with an unofficial, undisclosed cover. A secret agent, if you will.
Fact: Valerie Plame's identity and her "secret agent" status was leaked to several members of the media, who publshed this information.
Fact: Outting an undercover CIA agent is a federal crime - a breach of national security because it can seriously hamper the CIA's ability to operate abroad. This crime did, indisputably, take place. The reporters's didn't all suddenly get this information through divine revelation - it was given to them. This is the reason the special prosecutor investigation was initiated in the first place - to find out who leaked Plame's identity to the media.

All evidence collected thus far strongly points to the leak coming from inside the White House. Presumptive motive: to discredit Plame's husband, Wilson, who was publicly discrediting the false intelligence the Administration was using to push for the war in Iraq.

Prosecutor Fitzgerald was unable to pull together enough evidence to definitively charge any one person with revealing Plame's identity. This does not constitute the absence of a crime. The fact that her cover was blown to the media is the crime. The possibility that her career was destroyed as political retribution against her husband makes it a rather petty crime.

Libby was indicted and convicted of lying to a grand jury and obstructing the prosecutor's case. These are crimes - the President himself agreed to this in his statement this evening. He did not dispute the conviction itself. The President didn't go so far as to pardon Libby outright, because it is clear that Libby was guilty of these crimes. For the President to pardon Libby outright would, at this point, be tantamount to announcing that his administration was guilty of the original crime, except that no one would have to face any punishment for it.